Source: http://www.capetown.travel/blog/entry/company_gardens_flickr_pic_of_the_day: 2016
Page | 87
6 Pier Place 11 4 7
7 North Wharf Square 14 6 8
8 Long Street 12 6 6
9 Lower Long Street 12 6 6
10 Jetty Square 15 5 10
11 Company’s Garden 18 13 5
Source: Author, 2015
Graph 1: Publicness Situation of Some Selected Public Spaces in the Cape Town Central City Improvement Districts
Source: Author, 2015
-15 -10 -5 0 5 10 15 20
NEREMETH SCORES
PUBLICNESS SITUATION IN SOME SELECTED PUBLIC SPACES IN THE CAPE TOWN CENTRAL CITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
Features encouraging freedom of use (-)
Features discouraging freedom of use (+)
Page | 88 Graph 2: Total Score of the Publicness Situation of Some Selected Public Spaces in the Cape Town Central City Improvement Districts
Source: Author, 2015 6.4. Conclusion
The chapter began by analyzing the data secured through the interviews conducted with the selected interviewees to accomplish the first objective of the study, which was proceeded further to discuss briefly the 11 selected public spaces within the CCID, where the Németh index scoring sheet was applied to identify the characteristics, and measure their publicness.
The Németh’s index scoring sheet itemized and awarded marks for both features which encouraged and discouraged public freedom of the use of the selected public spaces. The next chapter which is chapter seven discusses the limitations, summary of the findings, recommendations and conclusions of the research.
0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16
NEREMETH SCORE
PUBLICNESS SITUATION IN SOME SELECTED PUBLIC SPACES IN THE CAPE TOWN CENTRAL CITY IMPROVEMENT DISTRICTS
Total Score
Page | 89 CHAPTER SEVEN: LIMITATIONS, SUMMARY, RECOMMENDATIONS AND CONCLUSIONS 7.0. Introduction
This chapter presents the limitations, summary of findings, conclusions and recommendations of this study. The objectives of this research were to identify the characteristics of privatized public spaces and their implications on the socio-political and spatial landscapes of South Africa, specifically Cape Town City CBD, and to establish the factors which promote privatization of public spaces. It was hypothesized that privatization of public spaces reduces the “publicness”
of public spaces, hence has a negative impact on the socio-cultural landscapes of South Africa.
The data gathered were from secondary sources, questionnaire interviews with key informants and personal observation using the Németh’s index scoring sheet. Conclusions drawn are based on the research findings.
7.1. Limitations to the Study
Since the researcher relied mostly on information obtained from informants, the limitation was that the information secured was based on what the respondents were willing to make available to the interviewer. Additionally, major limitations such as availability of pertinent information, time and budget constraints as well as the size of the study area dictated the narrow scope of the study. Moreover, most of the literature used was authored by Western authors. This impacted negatively on the research as most of the case studies were not easily related to the local context. For instance, owing to the challenges posed by the apartheid legacy, the CBDs of South Africa are less inhabited compared to other cities around the world which did not face such challenges. Thus, the level of sociability and inclusiveness as perceived in the international context may be different from that of South Africa.
Although the Németh’s index scoring sheet served as a guide in scoring the public spaces, the researcher had to apply his discretion in some instances in scoring some of the public spaces selected within the study area, since some of the items on the score sheet were not adequately defined and practically applicable. For instance, ‘entrance accessibility’ an item on the score sheet is not applicable to boulevard and pedestrian walkways due to the nature of their design.
More so, the day and time of collecting the data played an important role as certain days and times of the week might have a more positive or negative impact on the publicness of a space.
Page | 90 The researcher observed that all public spaces surveyed were animated and vibrant during lunch time and sunset compared to the morning hours, the reason being that most office workers were on lunch break and had closed from work at those times. Moreover, the researcher observed that almost all the public spaces selected attracted many users, particularly Long Street from 5: 00 pm on Friday and Saturday. In relative terms, all the public spaces were quieter since most offices do not open on Sundays, with exception of Long Street by virtue of the restaurants and cafés and its location. Also, the Company’s Garden was quiet busy on Saturdays and Sundays as they attract greater number of tourist due to its abundant natural beauty, diverse heritage and culture.
7.2. Summary of the Research Objectives and Findings
Using the Németh’s index scoring sheet, an interview schedule developed by the researcher, as well as review of relevant literature on the public spaces, the researcher is able to conclude whether the findings answer the four research questions. The findings are presented as follows:
7.2.1. Identified Characteristics of Privatized Public Spaces through BID Concept
A number of characteristics/features associated with privatized public spaces and their impact on the on socio-political and spatial landscapes of Cape Town, particularly the CCID were identified. These were found to include the presence of overt and oppressive controls such as:
human and electronic surveillance, easily noticeable security presence, over-managed and minimum support for few people and activities, which are indications of a less publicness situation. However, other elements enhancing publicness of a space including art/
cultural/visual enhancement, diversity of seating types, lighting to encourage nighttime use, good entrance accessibility and various microclimates such trees and overhangs were identified.
In conclusion, the findings obtained through the researcher’s observations with the aid of the Németh’s index scoring sheet and guided by the core dimensions of public spaces (ownership, physical configuration, animation, control and civility) resonate with the characteristics and their socio-political and spatial implications on privatized public spaces, especially the CCID of Cape Town.
Page | 91 7.2.2. Contributory Factors to Privatization of Public Spaces
An official from the CCCID interviewed acknowledged that the need to regenerate and improve urban areas, which have fallen victim to “crime and grime”, which of course lead to urban flight to other suburbs and disinvestment in an area was identified as the major contributory factor to privatization of public spaces. Hence, the BID model is identified as one of the tools that effectively combat urban brightness.
The findings given by the participant from the CCCID accomplish the research objective, since they agree with the assertions made by Uys (2007) and Peyroux (2008) regarding the factors that contribute to privatization of public spaces, particularly BIDs in South Africa.
7.2.3. Reasons Identified as to Why Government Privatize Public Spaces
The researcher found that governments often fall on the assistance of private individuals through the concept BIDs or POPs in the provision and management of public spaces due to fiscal constraints.
The findings given by all the participants accomplish the research objective. Also, the main findings underscore the reasons given by Murray (2010), Németh et al. (2011) and Nasution et al. (2012) cited in Slangen (2005) as to why governments privatize public spaces.
7.2.4. Reasons Identified as to Why Private Developers Invest In Public Spaces
The findings secured from an official from the CCCID suggest that BIDs including the CIDs in Cape Town are not private corporations. BIDs are non-profit public-private partnership organizations established for communities/private landowners who wish to enjoy municipal services of a higher level. On the contrary, Peyroux (2007) states that BIDs are a form of privatization. However, she describes them as “shadow privatization”, where the management of publicly owned spaces is transferred into private. Typically, services rendered by BIDs include urban management services such as additional public safety measures, cleaning services, maintenance of infrastructure, upgrading of the environment, and social services as acknowledged by all the participants interviewed. Turan (2015) argues that private developers benefit from providing social services and security and ensuring clean environment in the sense that corporate social responsibilities, safety and clean environment attract new consumers into
Page | 92 their business domain, which enable them to maximize their profit. In the context of the CCID, the increased in the sales of residential properties from R115 million in 2011 to R249m in 2013 serve as evidence (CCCID Annual Report, 2014). Meanwhile POPs which are modes of privatization of public spaces provide and manage urban open spaces in exchange for density bonuses and other incentives.
In conclusion, the findings accomplish the research objectives, since they are in line with the primary objectives of BIDs outlined by Houston (1997) cited in Heimann (2007) and Dudek (2012).
7.3. Recommendations
Surveillance and security measures such as security cameras, security personnel, as well as cleanliness and maintenance practices should not be seen as infringements on people’s rights, since it is about balancing safety and the right to use public spaces. Therefore the use of such control measures and practices in contemporary public spaces should be commended as having a positive effect on the publicness of space. Nonetheless, the researcher acknowledges that extremely or overtly use of security measures and ambient designs, as well as over- maintenance and cleanliness practices could curtail the freedom of public space users, so these must be carefully regulated.
In addition, providers and managers of public space, particularly BIDs must seek to embrace the society including the poor, homeless and the destitute by involving their representatives in decision-making and policy formulation and implementation processes as they also depend on the use of public spaces for their source of livelihood. In essence, decision-making, policy formulation and implementation processes particularly within a SRA should not be the sole prerogative of the Municipal authorities, landlords and BID managers, but other public space users as well to prevent a section or group of people from being marginalized.
7.4. Further Studies
Since there are various types of public spaces as discussed in chapter one, it is proposed that studies must be conducted into the development of a universal/standard tool or means of assessing the publicness situation pertaining to individual types of public space, as every public
The aim of this research was identified and related to the concept of BID as adopted by the city of Cape Town. The chapter provided a summary of the research questions and findings, and recommendations were made based on the research findings regarding the measurement of the publicness of public spaces. Future research studies are suggested with the aim of improving the research into the concept of public space and governance.
City-governance cannot be undermined in urban form as far as spatial planning practices and decisions are concerned, as it contributes immensely to the development of the economy, environment as well as the health and social well-being of a community. The prime objective of the concept of BID is to provide solutions including maintenance of safety and cleanliness in cities or public spaces that are currently challenged with the issue of crime and urban decay.
However, the concept, which is mainly motivated by the private sector tends to satisfy the global economic needs through the provision of tourist destinations, office and residential accommodation for multinational establishments, and more often than not neglects the poor.
Page | 94 List of References
Published Research:
Akkar, Z. M. 2005. Questioning the" Publicness" of Public Spaces in Postindustrial Cities.
Traditional Dwellings and Settlements Review, 75-91.
Altman, I. and Zube, E.H. eds. 2012. Public places and spaces (Vol. 10). Springer Science &
Business Media.
Apostol, I. 2007. The production of public spaces: Design dialectics and pedagogy. ProQuest.
Barrett, T. 1997. Modernism and postmodernism: An overview with art examples. Art education: Content and practice in a postmodern era, 17-30.
Brant, T. D. 2012. Contested Space: ‘Youth’s Experience and Appropriation of Marseille’s Inner City District’.
Braun, V. and Clarke, V. 2006. Using thematic analysis in psychology. Qualitative Research in Psychology, 3 (2). pp. 77-101. ISSN 1478-0887
Brenner, N. and Theodore, N. 2002. Cities and the geographies of “actually existing neoliberalism”.
Bressi, T. W. 2002. The New York City Privately Owned Public Space Project, New York, New York [EDRA/Places Awards, 2001-2002--Research].Places, 15(1).
Buchwach, A. 2012. Using Public Spaces Freely: Ownership and Management of Public Spaces.
Burns, R. 2000. Introduction to Research Methods. London: Sage Publications
Carr, S., M. Francis, L.G. Rivlin and Stone, A.M. 1992. Public Space, Cambridge, Cambridge University Press.
Carmona, M., de Magalhães, C., & Hammond, L. (Eds.). 2008. Public space: the management dimension. Routledge.
Chakravarty, S. 2008. Is Public Space A Public Good? A Structure/Agency View of Narrative of Loss (No. 8527). USC Lusk Center for Real Estate.
Chidister, M. 1989. Public places, private lives: plazas and the broader public places, 6(1).
Chio, L. K. Transnational Financial Cooperation-The Driving Force Behind Globalization.
Constitution of the Republic of South Africa, 1996.
Page | 95 Cuthbert, A. R. 1995. The right to the city: surveillance, private interest and the public domain in Hong Kong. Cities, 12(5), 293-310.
Dawson, A. 2006. Geography of fear: crime and the transformation of public space in post- apartheid South Africa. The politics of public space, 123-42.
De Magalhães, C. 2010. Public space and the contracting-out of publicness: A framework for analysis. Journal of Urban Design, 15(4), 559-574.
De Magalhães, C. and Carmona, M. 2009. Dimensions and models of contemporary public space management in England. Journal of Environmental Planning and Management, 52(1), 111-129.
Department of Provincial and Local Government (DPLG), 2002. Case Studies of Sustainability in Local Governance, Pretoria,
Donaldson, R. 2001. A model for South African Urban Development in the 21st century? Paper presented at 20th South African Transport Conference, South Africa, 16th – 20th July 2001
‘Meeting the Transport Challenges in Southern Africa’.
Dray, A. 2010. The politics of the privatization of public space: the subsistence fishers of Durban, KwaZulu-Natal (Doctoral dissertation).
Duminy, J 2007. Rapid Urban Development and Fragmentation in a Post-Apartheid Era: The case of Ballito, South Africa, 1994 to 2007. Unpublished dissertation submitted to the Department of planning, University of KwaZulu-Natal
Ellen, I. G., Schwartz, A. E., Voicu, I., Brooks, L., & Hoyt, L. 2007. The Impact of Business Improvement Districts on Property Values: Evidence from New York City [with Comments].
Brookings-Wharton Papers on Urban Affairs, 1-39.
Ercan, Z. A. 2007. Public spaces of post-industrial cities and their changing roles. metujfa, 24(1), 115-137.
eThekwini Municipality Integrated Development Plan 2009/2010 Annual Review.
Evans, G. L., Worpole, K., & Bagwell, S. 2012. Public Space Management-Report to the Intercultural Cities Research Programme.
Fleisher, J., How Public Space is Used in Ancient Cities: The Case of SongoMnara, a Medieval Swahili City in Tanzania.
Page | 96 Freschi, F. 2007. Postapartheid publics and the politics of ornament: Nationalism, identity, and the rhetoric of community in the decorative program of the New Constitutional Court, Johannesburg. Africa Today, 54(2), 27-49.
Futuropa, Council of Europe Magazine, No. 3/2012-English, Public Space and Landscape: The Human Scale
Giometti, C. 2008. Integrating Urbanisms Growing places between New Urbanism and Post- Urbanism. Writing Urbanism: A Design Reader, 194.
Goldsteen, J.B. and Elliott, C.D. 1994. Designing America: Creating Urban Identity, New York, Reinhold.
Goodchild, B. 1990. Planning and the modern/postmodern debate. Town Planning Review, 61(2), 119.
Graham, S. and Aurigi, A. 1997. Virtual cities, social polarization, and the crisis in urban public space. The Journal of Urban Technology, 4(1), 19-52.
Grube-Cavers, A., Sánchez, C., & Inés, N. 2014. THE ROLE OF SHOPPING CENTERS AS SIMULATED PUBLIC SPACE: THE SHOPPING CENTER CENTRO MAYOR, BOGOTÁ, COLOMBIA.
Revista UDCA Actualidad&DivulgaciónCientífica, 17(1), 285-291.
Guriev, S. and Megginson, W., 2007. Privatization: What have we learned?. In Annual World Bank Conference on Development Economics—Regional 2007: Beyond Transition (pp. 249-96).
Habitat, U.N., 2005. World Charter for the Right to the City.
Hajer, M. and Reijndorp, R. 2001.In Search of New Public Domain, Rotterdam, NAI Publishers Hall, P. 1998. Cities in Civilisation, London, Weidenfeld& Nicolson.
Harvey, D. 1990. Postmodernism in the city: architecture and urban design. The condition of postmodernity, 3, 66-98.
Harvey, D. 2005. A Brief History of Neoliberalism. Oxford: Oxford University Press.
Heimann, C. and Oranje, M. 2008. City Improvement Districts in South Africa: an exploratory overview. Stads-en StreeksbeplanningTown and Regional Planning, (53), 14-24.
Heimann, C. R. 2007. An exploratory study into improvement districts in South Africa.
Heynen, H. 2000. Architecture and modernity: a critique. MIT press.
Page | 97 Higgins, G. 2009. A review of privatization definitions, options, and capabilities. A report for the Business, Labor, and Agricultural Committee. Helena, MT: Montana State Legislature, 2-3.
Hossain, D. M. and Karim, M. S. 2013. POSTMODERNISM: ISSUES AND PROBLEMS. Asian journal of social sciences & humanities, 2(2), 173-181.
Houssay-Holzschuch, M. and Teppo, A. 2009. A mall for all? Race and public space in post- apartheid Cape Town. cultural geographies, 16(3), 351-379.
Hoyt, L.M., 2003. The business improvement district: an internationally diffused approach to revitalization. METHODOLOGY, 4, p.6.
Huang, T. S. 2014. Is the public invited? Design, management and use of privately owned public spaces in New York City (Doctoral dissertation, NEW JERSEY INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY).
Kelbaugh, D. 2001. Three urbanisms and the public realm. In 3rd International Space Syntax Symposium (p. 14).
Kes-Erkul, A. 2014. From Privatized to Constructed Public Spaces: Observations from Turkish Cities.
Kohn, M. 2004. Brave new neighborhoods: The privatization of public space. Psychology Press.
Kothe, F. R. 1979. Walter Benjamin. Édition Text+ Kritik.
Landman, K. 2004, February. Who owns the roads? Privatising public space in South African cities through neighbourhood enclosures. In Privatization of Urban Space symposium, New Orleans (pp. 26-27).
Landman, K. 2006. Privatising public space in post-apartheid South African cities through neighbourhood enclosures. GeoJournal, 66(1-2), 133-146.
Landman, K. and Ntombela, N., 2006. Opening Up Spaces for the Poor in the Urban Form:
trends, challenges and their implications for access to urban land. Urban LandMark Position Paper, 4.
Lemanski, C. 2004. A new apartheid? The spatial implications of fear of crime in Cape Town, South Africa. Environment and Urbanization, 16(2), 101-112.
Loukaitou– Sideris, A. and Banarjee, T. 1998. Urban Design Downtown: Poetics and Politics of Form. Berkley, University of California Press.
Low, S. and Smith, N. (Eds.). 2013. The politics of public space. Routledge.
Page | 98 Madanipour, A. 2003. Public and Private Spaces of the City. London, Routledge.
Manheim, H. 1977. Sociological Research: Philosophy and Methods. Ontario: The Dorsey Press Marcuse, P. 2005. The ‘threat of terrorism’ and the right to the city. Fordham Urban law Journal, 32 (4), pp. 767 – 785.
Maxwell, J. A. 2012. Qualitative research design: An interactive approach: An interactive approach (Vol. 41). Sage.
McDonald, D.A. and Ruiters, G. 2006. Rethinking Privatisation. Towards a.
Memeza, M. 2000. By-law Enforcement in South African Cities.
Mertens, D. M. 1998. Research methods in education and Psychology: Integrating diversity with quantitative and qualitative approaches. London: Sage.
Mierzejewska, L., 2011. Appropriation of public urban space as an effect of privatization and globalization. QuaestionesGeographaicae, 30(4), pp. 39-46
Miles, M. B., & Huberman, A. M. 1994. Qualitative data analysis: An expanded sourcebook (2nd ed.). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.
Miraftab, F. 2007. Governing post-apartheid spatiality: implementing city improvement districts in Cape Town. Antipode, 39(4), 602-626.
Mitchell, D. 2003. The right to the city: Social justice and the fight for public space. Guilford Press.
Morçöl, G. and Wolf, J.F., 2010. Understanding business improvement districts: A new governance framework. Public Administration Review,70(6), pp. 906-913.
Murray, M. F. 2010. Private management of public spaces: Nonprofit organizations and urban parks. Harvard Environmental Law Review, 34, 179.
Nasution, A. D., &Zahrah, W. 2012. Public open space privatization and quality of life, case study Merdeka Square Medan. Procedia-Social and Behavioral Sciences, 36, 466-475.
Natrasony, S. M. and Alexander, D. 2005. The rise of modernism and the decline of place: the case of Surrey City Centre, Canada. Planning Perspectives, 20(4), 413-433.
Neal, Z., 2010. Seeking common ground: three perspectives on public space. Proceedings of the institution of Civil Engineers-Urban Design and Planning, 163(2), pp.59-66.
Page | 99 Németh, J. 2009. Defining a public: The management of privately owned public space. Urban Studies, 46(11), 2463-2490.
Németh, J. 2012. Controlling the Commons How Public Is Public Space? Urban Affairs Review, 48(6), 811-835.
Németh, J. and Schmidt, S. 2011. The privatization of public space: modeling and measuring publicness. Environment and Planning-Part B, 38(1), 5.
Németh, J. and Schmidt, S. 2007. Toward a methodology for measuring the security of publicly accessible spaces. Journal of the American Planning Association, 73(3), pp.283-297.
Oranje, M., Harrison, P., Van Huyssteen, E. and Meyer, E. 2000. A policy paper on Integrated Development Planning. Prepared for the Department or Provincial and Local Government, Pretoria.
Peyroux, E. 2008. City Improvement Districts in Johannesburg. An examination of the local variations of the BID model. ROBERT PÜTZ (Hg.), Business Improvement Districts. Passau, 139- 162.
Peyroux, E. 2006. City Improvement Districts (CIDs) in Johannesburg: Assessing the political and socio-spatial implications of private-led urban regeneration. Trialog, 2, pp.9-14.
Peyroux, E. 2007, June. City Improvement Districts (CIDs) and the production of urban space in Johannesburg: Urban regeneration, changing forms of governance and new meaning of places.
In 4th international conference on private urban governance and gated communities, Paris (pp.
5-8).
Rahi, G., Martynkiw, A. and Hein, E. 2012. Accessing Vancouver's Privately Owned Public Spaces. Trail Six: An Undergraduate Journal of Geography, 6.
Rajasekar, S., Philominathan, P., &Chinnathambi, V. 2006. Research methodology. arXiv preprint physics/0601009.
Ramoroko, T. and Tsheola, J. 2014. Gated-communities and the privatization of public spaces in urban South Africa: democratic social integration or exclusion. Journal of Geography and Regional Planning, 7(4), 58-68.
Shatkin, G. 2008. The City and the Bottom Line: Urban megaprojects and the privatization of planning in Southeast Asia, Environment and Planning A Vol. 40 p383 – 401
Sharp, J., Pollock, V., &Paddison, R. (2005). Just art for a just city: public art and social inclusion in urban regeneration. Urban Studies, 42(5-6), 1001-1023.